BSA amends female adult required with female youth

[qwazse]

It's a big country. So yes, there are troops of boys with two female adult leaders. One could argue that allowing that was a step on the way to how we got to where we are today.

I doubt that the criminology of predation has clearly shown that that a girl in a troop with two male leaders is at greater risk for abuse than a boy in a troop with two female leaders.

Rather, I bet the damages that BSA would incur from abuse perpetuated by a male leader on a female scout while dodging his male co-leader will be far greater than from abuse perpetuated by a female leader on a male scout while dodging her female co-leader.

This isn't about how safe our scouts are. It's about how deeply the organization's pockets can be gouged.

Edited October 9, 2019 by qwazse

[ParkMan]

On 10/9/2019 at 4:58 PM, qwazse said:

It's a big country. So yes, there are troops of boys with two female adult leaders. One could argue that allowing that was a step on the way to how we got to where we are today.

I doubt that the criminology of predation has clearly shown that that a girl in a troop with two male leaders is at greater risk for abuse than a boy in a troop with two female leaders.

Rather, I bet the damages that BSA would incur from abuse perpetuated by a male leader on a female scout while dodging his male co-leader will be far greater than from abuse perpetuated by a female leader on a male scout while dodging her female co-leader.

This isn't about how safe our scouts are. It's about how deeply the organization's pockets can be gouged.

I expect you're right.

However, that's the wrong way for the BSA to react.  I can understand if the BSA is responding to requests of underwriters.  Buy, then the BSA needs to apply the rules equally.  If the underwriters decide that the BSA needs 10 deep leadership in a troop for girls, then by golly make it 10 deep leadership for everyone.  

I respect our professionals - but think they need to be thinking about the messages they are sending.  

BTW - there is no discussion about 10 deep leadership.  Just using a ridiculous idea to make the point

[shortridge]

To clarify the thread title: National did not amend that requirement. They appear to have waived in this case due to the specific circumstances involved. That’s not the same as a blanket change across the board.

[Sentinel947]

On 10/9/2019 at 11:42 AM, Treflienne said:

 

1) Allow adult leadership to be men-only.   Some parents, including me, will balk at this and not permit our daughers to go, depending on the event.  (Would I really want to send a small group of teenage girls on a camping trip to be supervised by young men in their early twenties?  Sorry.  Not a good idea in my mind.  )

 

Bingo. This right here is why I will have nothing to do with female Scouts BSA troops. As a single man in his 20's, I can only be viewed by parents as a potential predator in the making, and I have no desire to deal with that. 

[Liz]

33 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Bingo. This right here is why I will have nothing to do with female Scouts BSA troops. As a single man in his 20's, I can only be viewed by parents as a potential predator in the making, and I have no desire to deal with that. 

That's just heartbreaking to me. I understand where you're coming from entirely. But IMO, we need to practice two-deep leadership and other YPT rules like the law, because that will stop the few rotten apples from doing damage, and from there practice "A Scout is Trustworthy." 

Yes, I'd allow my daughter to attend events without female leaders present, as long as I had faith that YPT was consistently followed in the unit. I don't worry about unit leaders preying on my daughter partly because I know they are never ever alone with her.                                       

[ParkMan]

6 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

Bingo. This right here is why I will have nothing to do with female Scouts BSA troops. As a single man in his 20's, I can only be viewed by parents as a potential predator in the making, and I have no desire to deal with that. 

 

5 hours ago, Liz said:

That's just heartbreaking to me. I understand where you're coming from entirely. But IMO, we need to practice two-deep leadership and other YPT rules like the law, because that will stop the few rotten apples from doing damage, and from there practice "A Scout is Trustworthy." 

Yes, I'd allow my daughter to attend events without female leaders present, as long as I had faith that YPT was consistently followed in the unit. I don't worry about unit leaders preying on my daughter partly because I know they are never ever alone with her.                                       

 

I have two daughters and a son.  I am very protective of all of them.  

I think this is where YPT in the BSA can serve another beneficial purpose. 

In the GSUSA, the rules about male involvement have all but removed fathers from the equation.  My two daughters are Girl Scouts and I have never been welcomed in their Scouting experience.  It so saddens me that even my wonderful, progressive wife who is a Girl Scout leader has so totally embraced the concept that Girl Scouting is about women guiding girls through Scouting.

Yet, my son's Cub Scout Pack & Scouts BSA Troop for boys have an adult leadership team that is about 40% female.  It has created a wonderful environment where countless mothers, fathers, and their sons can enjoy Scouting together.  It's been such a wonderfully welcoming environment that we've often had female siblings tag along.  So, because of how inclusive the BSA has been, I totally get why we now have girls in the program. 

I also understand why the GSUSA never will have boys in their program.

Now that we have introduced female Scouts, the BSA has a wonderful opportunity to provide the same welcoming environment for female youth.  I will admit that I do not know numbers - but I have to imagine that a group of adult males will be just as trustworthy taking a group of girls camping as they would with female adults present.  Whether it's groups of boys or girls, most Scouting units are composed of parents.  Yes, at the Scouts BSA level, there are more volunteers who are either young adults or adults who's parents have aged out.  But, for the most part it's parents like me who want to Scout with their children.  I would love to have the opportunity to Scout with my 10 year old daughter.

So, when I saw the BSA rules that required female leaders, I was very disappointed.  Because I've been a Cub Scout leader, I know that the Cub program is very family involved.  You absolutely have lots of both mothers & fathers present.  In Scouts BSA it will be the same thing.  Just as we have 40% female adults in the troop leadership team today, so too would I expect that we'll have 40% males in a troop for girls without any new BSA rules

So, I see these rules a something of the BSA falling into the same trap as the GSUSA.  That men are dangerous and we need women there to keep girls safe.  This is an unfortunate social construct that we keep teaching generation after generation.  Here the BSA can leverage all the YPT training, backgrounds checks, COR oversight, and benefit of troops with established track records to let girls and their parents know that they will be just fine with adult men taking girls camping.

I feel for you @Sentinel947.  Breaks my heart too to see your post.  

For my part, I accept the YPT rules and do embrace them to the fullest.  But, I really do wish the BSA would sit down with some experts and rethink this message that they are sending to girls, mothers, and their fathers. 

[Sentinel947]

7 hours ago, ParkMan said:

So, I see these rules a something of the BSA falling into the same trap as the GSUSA.  That men are dangerous and we need women there to keep girls safe.  This is an unfortunate social construct that we keep teaching generation after generation.  Here the BSA can leverage all the YPT training, backgrounds checks, COR oversight, and benefit of troops with established track records to let girls and their parents know that they will be just fine with adult men taking girls camping.

I feel for you @Sentinel947.  Breaks my heart too to see your post.  

For my part, I accept the YPT rules and do embrace them to the fullest.  But, I really do wish the BSA would sit down with some experts and rethink this message that they are sending to girls, mothers, and their fathers. 

It doesn't really break mine. Any time there's a man among youth (male of female), there are going to be parents that are rightfully defensive about it. Those of you who have rubbed shoulders with foreign Scout groups have seen that young adults in their 20's-30's make up a big chunk of Scout leaders. Here in the States, a combination of moving away from home for college, lack of paid time off at the beginning of careers, and "all adult men around kids must be potential pedophiles" keeps Scouting in the US from tapping into a knowledgeable and needed group of volunteers. I'm not sure what the answer is for that. 

Statistically men are more dangerous than women. However, statistically many child abusers are family or related to the victim. 

Given my demographic and situation, I do my best to educate others and enforce YPT. Not only does it protect our youth, but it's critical to protect my reputation as well. If other people have innocent lapses with YPT, they will likely be given a pass. I cannot and will not count on that. 

What does break my heart: We had our council camporee last weekend. I took some of the Catholic Scouts to Mass at the camporee. On the way back to our campsite one of them asked which parish church I attend. All 4 of the youth and I attend the same parish church. Our former pastor was recently suspended by the diocese for breaking the Catholic Church's version of YPT. After that news broke he was accused and charged with abuse of a minor in the 1990's before he became a Priest. Thankfully they didn't ask too many questions, (I hope they had those conversations with their parents.)

Parents are right to be defensive and protective of their kids. The last few decades have proved you can't really fully trust anybody with your kids; not your Scout leaders, not the Priest, not their teachers, not their coaches and not even your own family. Parents can't remove all the adults from their kids lives, but they do need to remain vigilant. So I'm not mad at parents for having that attitude. I'm not mad that parents view people like me with suspicion. I'm not going to swim uphill against the prevailing attitudes and suspicions of the culture. 

[WisconsinMomma]

On 10/9/2019 at 3:58 PM, qwazse said:

It's a big country. So yes, there are troops of boys with two female adult leaders. One could argue that allowing that was a step on the way to how we got to where we are today.

I doubt that the criminology of predation has clearly shown that that a girl in a troop with two male leaders is at greater risk for abuse than a boy in a troop with two female leaders.

Rather, I bet the damages that BSA would incur from abuse perpetuated by a male leader on a female scout while dodging his male co-leader will be far greater than from abuse perpetuated by a female leader on a male scout while dodging her female co-leader.

This isn't about how safe our scouts are. It's about how deeply the organization's pockets can be gouged.

Most sex offenders are male.  There are female sex offenders too, but the majority of abusers are men.

Scouting needs leaders, male and female.  Two-deep leadership and Youth Protection are VERY important, and parents should have full visibility into the program any time / every time they want it.  It takes a village to keep kids safe.

Edited October 13, 2019 by WisconsinMomma

[Liz]

40 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Most sex offenders are male.  There are female sex offenders too, but the majority of abusers are men.

Scouting needs leaders, male and female.  Two-deep leadership and Youth Protection are VERY important, and parents should have full visibility into the program any time / every time they want it.  It takes a village to keep kids safe.

While true (at least in terms of REPORTED sex offenders), why does this not mean that we need to have male and female leaders on ALL outings, regardless of the gender of the youth involved? 

All or nearly all of the lawsuits against the BSA for previous failures to protect youth from sexual predators is from abuse against male youth. Why do they deserve less protection than female youth? Is there any particular evidence that girls are in more danger than boys from sexual predators? We do know male victims report less often than females, but not necessarily that they are victimized less. 

[Treflienne]

10 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

a combination of moving away from home for college, . . . . keeps Scouting in the US from tapping into a knowledgeable and needed group of volunteers.

There are older brothers of our scouts, with great skills that they learned in scouting, that I would like to tap to help with our Scouts BSA girls -- were they not away from home attending college.   There are also older cousins, male and female, in their twenties,  with Eagle Scout and Venturing backgrounds,  that I would love to tap to help out -- except that they live out of state. 

We live in a town which people leave at age 18.   And to which people move at around age thirtyish,  already married,  and either with preschool children, or thinking about soon having children. 

[Eagle94-A1]

In my experience there are several factors as to why young adults do not stick around. College is indeed a big one. One issue I faced when I was under 25 was that other adults refused to view me as a fellow adult with the same knowledge, abilities, and skills that they had. As a 21 year old OA chapter advisor, that was a big issue with others on the district committee I sat with. I was either told I don't know what i'm talking about, or ignored all together. I had to use my allies on the committees to get my ideas across fro the benefit of the Scouts.

Worse case was the SM who wanted me to alter the troop's OA election results. He actually followed me into the parking lot, cursing me out and saying I had no idea what I was doing in the OA. 

But the #1 factor I see now affects the 18-20 year olds, and we need to keep them active. The problem is thatr National no longer counts them as adults in regards to YP guidelines. I remember the stink that happened when National tried to implement the policy immediately, and troops started complaining to the councils and HA bases because they would have to cancel trips because they were relying on the 18-20 y.o. ASMs as the 2nd adult.

If the young adults do not believe National trusts them as adults, why should they stick around?